Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Island Defense (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. PhilKnight (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Island Defense[edit]

Doesn't explain why it is notable, no sourcing, unencyclopedic. TheAE talk/sign 02:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 02:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable; no references are given, and the general state and tone of the article give me little reason to believe they exist. The company has no hits on Google News. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable Warcraft 3 map. A few maps break the surface of notability (DotA, for instance), but this one does not by any means. Incidentally, Drmies, there's no company involved - "Yacapo & Dildamesh" are in all likelihood the online nicknames of two of its creators. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks, shows you what an expert I am. (Oh, so "game" means "map"!) Company or people, they didn't register on Google. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 06:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.